Shivmurti vs State Of Uttarakhand

Alok Kumar Verma, J

Present Application has been filed under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for grant of Anticipatory Bail under Sections 409, 420, 466, 467, 468, 471, Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, Section 13(1) (d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 in connection with the Case Crime No. 285 of 2019 (Special Sessions Trial No. 61 of 2022), registered at police station Jaspur, District Udham Singh Nagar.

A Special Investigation Team was constituted in compliance with the order of this Court, passed in Writ Petition (PIL) No. 33 of 2019. Sub-Inspector Mr. Shyam Lal Vishwakarma was a member of the said Special Investigation Team. He enquired the matter and lodged an FIR on 15.10.2019.

Heard Mr. Navneet Kaushik, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. M.K. Chand, learned A.G.A. for the State.

Mr. Navneet Kaushik, Advocate, has submitted that the First Anticipatory Bail Application (ABA No. 97 of 2021) was dismissed on 20.09.2021 as infructuous on the statement of the counsel under the impression that as the Investigating Officer has taken the personal bond and sureties from the applicant in compliance with the interim order dated 25.06.2021, nothing more is left in the Anticipatory Bail Application.

Mr. Navneet Kaushik, Advocate, contended that the applicant was posted as Personal Assistant/Senior Personal Assistant at Rudrapur, District Udham Singh Nagar in the Office of the District Social Welfare Officer, District Udham Singh Nagar from August, 2004 to 26.06.2019. The cheques of the scholarship amount were disbursed under the signature of the then District Social Welfare Officer. There was no role of the applicant in the said disbursement. The scholarship amounts were deposited directly in the bank accounts of the concerned students. The institute-in-question was situated outside the State of Uttarakhand. There was no policy prior to 15.07.2015 for physical verification of the students. Applicant is a Government servant, therefore, there is no likelihood of his absconding. He was not arrested during the course of the investigation. He is not a previous convict. Charge-sheet has already been filed, therefore, there is no need of custodial interrogation.

On the other hand, Mr. M.K. Chand, A.G.A., for the State, opposed the Second Anticipatory Bail Application orally. However, he has stated that a charge-sheet has been filed by the Investigating Officer, therefore, there is no need of custodial interrogation.

Personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India is very precious fundamental right and it should be curtailed only when it becomes imperative according to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case.

In the facts and circumstances of the case, applicant- Shivmurti is directed to be released on Anticipatory Bail, in the event of his arrest, on furnishing his personal bond of Rs. 30,000/- and two reliable sureties, each in the like amount on the following conditions:-

i) Applicant shall attend the Trial court regularly and he shall not seek any unnecessary adjournment;

ii) Applicant shall not directly or indirectly make any inducement, threat or promise to any person acquainted with the facts of this case.

iii) Applicant shall not leave the country without the previous permission of the Trial Court.

It is clarified that if the applicant misuses or violates any of the conditions, imposed upon him, the concerned authority will be free to move the Court for cancellation of the anticipatory bail.

Second Anticipatory Bail Application (No. 13 of 2024) stands disposed of accordingly.